Re: [Fis] Is information physical?

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Hi all,

Information is information.
There is no reason to bundle it under any other genus.

There are physical information! (Cf., my paper at the Vienna conference, 
2015.)

... And there are other (non-physical) information.

Other approach:
Information follows, in certain aspects, some laws of physics, and it 
avoids to do so in other instances.
Even following a law of physics doesn't allow to identify the object (in 
our case: information) with physics.


Similar to a well discussed other example: information can be 
characterised by similar mathematics to that of entropy, while this 
similitude does not mean that information as such is entropy.


Good luck,
Gyuri


On 2018.04.25. 6:52, Louis H Kauffman wrote:

Dear Mark,
Thank you for suggesting this topic.
I concur wholeheartedly with your stand on this matter.
Information in the sense that you indicate
is pattern that is independent of the particular substrate on which it 
is ‘carried’.


There is a persistent myth in popular scientific culture that 
mathematics and the physical are identical.

Just as information is not physical, neither is mathematics.
Each mathematical structure is recognizable as mathematics in that it 
is strictly relational and quite independent of the medium in which it 
is expressed.


The example of mathematics as information independent of substrate
is an opening for exploring more deeply the nature of information. For 
we are all aware
of the remarkable interplay of mathematics and the quantitative and 
structural understanding of the physical.


I suspect that the end result of that exploration will be for us to 
admit that

we do not know know what is physical,
that we can deny that information is not physical.

The crux of the matter (sic)
lies in the distinction made between the physical and the non-physical.
There is such a distinction.
The boundary of that distinction is unknown territory.
Very best,
Lou Kauffman


On Apr 24, 2018, at 8:47 PM, Burgin, Mark > wrote:


Dear Colleagues,

I would like to suggest the new topic for discussion

Is information physical?

My opinion is presented below:



Why some people erroneously think that information is physical
The main reason to think that information is physical is the strong 
belief of many people, especially, scientists that there is only 
physical reality, which is studied by science. At the same time, 
people encounter something that they call information.
When people receive a letter, they comprehend that it is information 
because with the letter they receive information. The letter is 
physical, i.e., a physical object. As a result, people start thinking 
that information is physical. When people receive an e-mail, they 
comprehend that it is information because with the e-mail they 
receive information. The e-mail comes to the computer in the form of 
electromagnetic waves, which are physical. As a result, people start 
thinking even more that information is physical.
However, letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all physical 
objects are only carriers or containers of information.
To understand this better, let us consider a textbook. Is possible to 
say that this book is knowledge? Any reasonable person will tell that 
the textbook contains knowledge but is not knowledge itself. In the 
same way, the textbook contains information but is not information 
itself. The same is true for letters, e-mails, electromagnetic waves 
and other physical objects because all of them only contain 
information but are not information. For instance, as we know, 
different letters can contain the same information. Even if we make 
an identical copy of a letter or any other text, then the letter and 
its copy will be different physical objects (physical things) but 
they will contain the same information.
Information belongs to a different (non-physical) world of knowledge, 
data and similar essences. In spite of this, information can act on 
physical objects (physical bodies) and this action also misleads 
people who think that information is physical.
One more misleading property of information is that people can 
measure it. This brings an erroneous assumption that it is possible 
to measure only physical essences. Naturally, this brings people to 
the erroneous conclusion that information is physical. However, 
measuring information is essentially different than measuring 
physical quantities, i.e., weight. There are no “scales” that measure 
information. Only human intellect can do this.
It is possible to find more explanations that information is not 
physical in the general theory of information.


Sincerely,
Mark Burgin


On 4/24/2018 10:46 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

A very interesting discussion theme has been proposed by Mark Burgin 
--he will post at his early convenience.
Thanks are due to Alberto for his "dataism" piece. Quite probably we 
will need to revisit that theme, as it 

Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Information exists at all levels of Agents.

Good luck,
Gyuri


On 2017.10.15. 23:27, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus
Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is
sent to authors for refining.
Many thanks for fruitful work!

What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some
more than data.
In other words:
  d = r
  i = r + e
where:
  d => data;
  i => information;
  r => reflection;
  e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter,
etc.).

Simple question: What is “Agent”?

When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity as
Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the
end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents?

Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents.

Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Can the can drink beer ?

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Dear FIS-ers,

1) A can is empty or filled. Its "emptiness" or "filledness" is an 
information. This is an objective property. It is independent of whether 
a conscious being perceives it or not. I generally argue for this 
non-subjectivity of information.


2) There is an information change when a filled can loses its content, 
independent of whether a conscious being pours the content, or that 
happens as a result of a damage by an earthquake.


3) Information is transmitted between two telephone exchange centers via 
wires (or wireless) by the way of electromagnetic impulses. Generally it 
is initiated by conscious human beings, and received by another (if one 
answers the call, or detects at her/his computer). In certain cases, the 
impulses can be modified by outside magnetic waves originating from the 
space, e.g., from the Sun. It is also a part of the transmitted 
information, and no "conscious information-processor" takes active part 
in it.


This *information*(by its nickname e-mail), transmitted to you, has been 
in your computer even before you read (and perceived) it.


Best, Gyuri


On 2017.03.26. 11:39, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Brian, Arturo, Karl, Alex, Lars-Goran, Gyuri, and FIS colleagues,
Thank you for your remarks!
What is important is that every theory has its own understanding of 
the concepts it uses.

For “foreigners”, theirs meaning may be strange or unknown.
Some times, concepts of one theory contradict to corresponded concepts 
from other theory.
For years, I have met many different definitions of concept 
“information” and many more kinds of its use.

From materialistic up to weird point of view...
To clear my own understanding, I shall give you a simple example:
CAN THE CAN DRINK BEER ?
CAN THE CAN EXCHANGE BEER WITH THE GLASS ?
The can is used by humans for some goals, for instance to store some 
beer for a given period.
But the can itself “could not understand” its own functions and what 
the can can do with beer it contains.

All its functionality is a human’s consciousness model.
Can cannot exchange beer with the glass if there are no human activity 
or activity of additional devices invented by humans to support this.

Further:
CAN THE ARTIFICIAL LEG WALK  ?
You know the answer ... Human with an artificial leg can walk ...
All functionality of artificial leg is a result from human’s 
consciousness modeling and invention.

In addition:
IS THE “PHYSICAL INFORMATION” INFORMATION ?
If it is, the first question is how to measure the quantity and 
quality of such “information” and who can do this?
I prefer the answer “NO” – “physical information” is a concept which 
means something else but not “information” as it is in my understanding.
From my point of view, “physical information” is a kind of reflection 
(see “Theory of reflections” of T.Pavlov).
Every reflection may be assumed as information iff (if and only if) 
there exist a subjective information expectation to be resolved by 
given reflection.
For physical information this low is not satisfied. Because of this, I 
prefer to call this phenomenon simply “a reflection”.

And so on ...
Finally:
Human been invented too much kinds of prostheses including ones for 
our intellectual functionalities, i.e. many different kinds of 
electronic devices which, in particular, can generate some electrical, 
light, etc. impulses, which we assume as “information”; usually a 
combination of impulses we assume as s structure to be recognized by 
us as “information”.
A special kind of prostheses are Robots. They have some autonomous 
functionalities but are still very far from living consciousness. The 
level of complexity of robot’s consciousness is far of human’s one. 
Someone may say that robots understand and exchange “information”, but 
still they only react on incoming signals following the instructions 
given by humans. Theirs functioning is similar to human ones but only 
similar. They may recognize some structures of signals and exchange 
such ones with other robots or living creatures. Maybe someone wants 
to call this “information exchange”, but, after Shannon, I call this 
“sending and/or receiving signals”. And automatic reaction to signals.
One may say, the Robot (Computer) memory contains information but 
really it does not contain anything – it has its own structure which 
can be changed temporally of permanently by external electrical impulses.
Is the human memory the same – a structure which can be changed 
temporally of permanently by external or internal signals? I think – 
yes, It is!
What is the difference? Why we may say that the living creatures 
process information but not living couldn’t?
The answer is: because the living creatures may create and resolve the 
“information expectation” with very high level of complexity.

Maybe in the future robots will can do it ...
Such robot I call “INFOS”. It will be artificial living creature. 
Possibly with some biological elements.
It will be very interesting and 

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Dear All,

I follow O. Rössler's concerns for a few years.

As a physicist (who is probably not the best specialist in the black 
hole physics), I do not want to involve in detailed physical 
explanations and mathematical proofs for information specialists, not 
certainly specialised in physics.


According to me, there is a misunderstanding that makes the story curious.

Stellar black holes are a result of a gravitational collapse. That 
collapse takes place, when the mass of the star exceeds a critical 
value; it is a result of the locally high gravitational field. that 
gravitational field is stronger than the electromagnetic field that (in 
a very simplified picture) keeps the  electrons revolve in a distance 
around the nucleus.
In the course of that gravitational collapse the electron shells of the 
atoms fall in the nucleus. The properties of the black holes are defined 
for them. The star becomes very small in size, but has a strong 
gravitational field, and behaves like described in the bh literature.

Cause: high gravity; effect: collapse, emergence of a bh.

One can produce single atom collapse in extreme laboratory 
circumstances. Why not? However, that single (or few) atom collapse will 
not produce a gravitational field exceeding the critical value; since 
its mass is much less than the critical. The reason is that it was 
"created" not by a self-generated gravitational collapse. Therefore, it 
will not "eat" matter in its environment. According to the lack of 
distance between the nucleus and electron shell(s) around it, these 
"atoms" (sic!) are called mini-black-holes. However, they do not behave 
like the stellar black holes over the critical mass. *The name is only 
an analogy*, marked by the prefix "mini-".
Cause: not high gravity; effect: no critical mass, no more attraction of 
other masses around it than before its collapse.


Regards,
Gyuri



On 2017.01.11. 11:33, Otto E. Rossler wrote:

I like this response from Lou,
Otto



*From:* Louis H Kauffman 
*To:* Pedro C. Marijuan 
*Cc:* fis 
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:09 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

Dear Folks,
It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning 
Professor Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or 
false.
It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is 
correctly alligned to physical prediction.

Note also that a reaction such as
"THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND 
SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.
Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in 
the form of taking a given conclusion for granted

 and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion.

By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political 
state of the world.


This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of 
the possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.


At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall 
read and look forward to making further comments next week.

Best,
Lou Kauffman


On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
> wrote:



From Alex Hankey
 Mensaje reenviado 
Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Fecha:  Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
De: Alex Hankey  
Para: 	PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ  





THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND 
SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.


On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
> wrote:


Dear FISers,

Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
counter-arguments...

Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
--Pedro




*De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com ]
*Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
*Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
*Asunto:* NY session
--

*A Curious Story*
Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany

Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would
then make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone
says “I can save your house from a time bomb planted into the
basement” and you respond by saying “I don’t care.” This curious
story is taken from the Buddhist bible.
It of course 

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Dear Pedro, and the previous discussants,

I refer to my paper presented last year at the Vienna summit:
- quarks continuously exchange gluons;
- gluon exchange takes place between quarks in different "colour" states
(otherwise they were in identical quantum states, what is excluded by 
the Pauli principle);
- they must avoid to get into identical colour state even after the 
gluon exchange;
- for this reason, before (or at least parallel to) gluon exchange, they 
must obtain information on the (colour) state of the partner;
- whatever physical phenomenon mediates this knowledge about the 
partner, this is a kind of *information* exchange.

Isn't it a "real" communication?
I argue: it is.

Best regards, Gyuri



On 2016.01.21. 15:06, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments. 
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I 
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest 
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.


There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow 
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input 
according to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and 
parameters that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome 
may be probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.


There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as 
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary 
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of 
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the 
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.


In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made 
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.


Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from 
its intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything 
goes... and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, 
stones, cells, etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the 
mechanistic way of thinking.


best regards--Pedro



Koichiro Matsuno escribió:


At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:

In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language 
must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction 
among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.


The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, 
including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with 
use of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is 
methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the 
things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, 
the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of 
cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing 
chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something 
referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended. 
Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting 
in the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, 
so far.


   Koichiro

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry 
LR Chandler

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis 
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of 
human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the 
immediate issue.


 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication 
between the general community and, say, the music (operatic and 
ballad) communities.


Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining 
terms as “metaphor”in another discipline.


Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly 
known and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities. 
 In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of 
intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an 
intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in 
different disciplines.


(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, 
Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)


The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings 
and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES. For example, 
ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of 
mathematical symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical 
language, once it grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of 
symbols and new meanings for relations among mathematical symbols. 
 Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of terms that 
are have different meanings 

Re: [Fis] FIS News (Moscow 2013)

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Dear Pedro, Joe, and all FISers,

Great news!

As I notified you before, the Symmetry Festival 2013 (Delft, The
Netherlands, 2-6 August)

http://symmetry.hu/festival2013.html is open and glad to host a
FIS symposium on symmetries in information studies. The Festival consists
of a series of symposia, and FIS would well fit among them. You are
welcome!

Best wishes,
Gyuri






. 
Symmetry Festival
2013, Delft, 2-7
August 
Download and
print the
poster in A3 size, post it at your department, 
throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues
outside. 
Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event! 
. 
A recent publication online: 

Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and its associated
conservation law 
. 

Greetings from Budapest 
__ 
Gyorgy Darvas 
E-mail ; Skype: darvasgy;
S Y M M E T R I O N 
Address: 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067 Hungary 
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965; 
Monograph:

Symmetry;
Course of
lectures on

Symmetry, 

Course of lectures on

Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of IFCS 
___



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Ladies and Guys,

I do not understand fully, why the problematic of dark matter is so
much important from the aspect of information.

We, physicists either, cannot agree what is dark matter. 
Several physicists interpret the notion in different ways, and this
ambiguity is reflected in the Fis discussion as well.
I have my own interpretation as well, what differs from that of most
physicists. (I do not want to bore you with my interpretation.)
We do not agree even in that, whether dark matter and dark energy
are the same. (According to me, they aren't. cf., e.g. my paper linked in
my signo)

 From my aspects of symmetry/invariance, I'd add only one, I think
so, important issue:
all physicists agree in the conservation of mass in the universe,
but
- we do not agree which mass is conserved (i.e., it may be the
gravitational mass, or may be the sum of the gravitational and inertial
masses);
- many physicists are not aware that although the mass
(which?) is conserved, the value of the conserved quantity depends on the
reference frame from which we observe it.
The latter has two important consequences:
- once, there must be such a reference frame, in which the conserved
quantity of mass - counted on the basis of the first Noether theorem - is
minimal; in this case that reference frame is distinguished from all
other reference frames; and this distinction would contradict to one of
the basic principles of the relativity theory, according to which all
reference frames are equivalent.
- at second, if we would like to avoid this contradiction, there
must be such a gauge field, in the presence of which all reference frames
lead to the same amount of conserved mass. This means, there is not the
Lorentz transformation alone under which the mass will be conserved in
the universe, but the Lorentz transformation plus another transformation
in that gauge field (which should depend on velocity). (I proved the
existence of such combined transformation in a series of papers in
2009-12. It holds not only for mass.)

In short, I think, it is not our task to solve the problem of
what is dark matter.
However, this remark does not mean a constraint to wish a happy new
year to all of you,
Gyuri






. 
Symmetry Festival
2013, Delft, 2-7
August 
Download and
print the
poster in A3 size, post it at your department, 
throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues
outside. 
Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event! 
. 
A recent publication online: 

Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law 
. 
__ 
Gyorgy Darvas 
E-mail ; Skype: darvasgy;
S Y M M E T R I O N 
Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067
Hungary 
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965; 
Monograph:

Symmetry;
Course of
lectures on

Symmetry, 

Course of lectures on

Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of IFCS 
___



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] The Inventor of Information as Asymmetry

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Dear FISers:
A short notice to add to Shu-Kun's info:
The journal Symmetry: Culture and Science

http://symmetry.hu/aus_journal_content_abs.html 
covers the topics asymmetry too (or mainly?) 
and published two entropy related special issues recently:

Volume 16, Number 1, pages 1-112 (2005) Order,
Entropy and Symmetry 
and

Volume 18, Number 4, pages 273-352 (2007) Symmetry
and Entropy .
Two, much earlier issues covered symmetry and information (as cited by
John yesterday):

Volume 7, Number 3, pages 225-336 (1996) Symmetry
and Information, 1 

Volume 8, Number 2, pages 113-224 (1997) Symmetry
and Information, 2 
Regards,
Gyuri



At 01:20 2009.11.15. +0100, you wrote:
...
Another special issue is Entropy, Order and Symmetry,

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry/special_issues/entropy-symmetry
.
I sincerely welcome you to contribute your paper and bring some progress
to
the studies of this topic.
..
Best regards,
Shu-Kun




Symmetry Festival 2009,
Keynote and Plenary lectures
Foreword to the Symmetry Festival 2009
Symmetry
Festival 2009,
Budapest, 31 July - 5 August


Gyorgy Darvas
 
E-mail / Skype: darv...@iif.hu
S Y M M E T R I O N
Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary
Mailing address: P.O. Box 994,
Budapest, H-1245 Hungary
Fax: 36 (1) 331-3161 Phone: 36 (1) 312-3022; 36
(1) 331-3975 

Monograph: Symmetry
Course
of lectures 





___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis